ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: To compare the double row technique versus the single row technique for arthroscopic rotator cuff repair, in order to assess whether there are clinical differences. METHODS: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials comparing the clinical results of the double-row technique versus the single-row technique in arthroscopic rotator cuff repair. Demographic, clinical, and surgical variables were analyzed, including functional scores, tendon healing rate, and re-tear rate. RESULTS: Thirteen randomized clinical trials were selected. 437 patients in the single row group (50.7%) and 424 patients in the double row group (49.3%) were analyzed. No significant differences were found between the two groups in terms of age (P=.84), sex (P=.23) and loss to follow-up (P=.52). Significant differences were found for the better results of the double row technique at the UCLA level (P=.01). No significant differences were found on the Constant-Murley scale (P=.87) or on the ASES scale (P=.56). Similarly, there was a higher healing rate (P=.006) and less risk of rotator cuff re-tears with the double row technique (P=.006). CONCLUSIONS: In rotator cuff repair, the double row technique was found to be superior to the single row technique in terms of better UCLA score, better tendon healing rate, and lower re-tear rate. No clinically significant differences were found on the Constant-Murley scale or on the ASES scale.
ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION: Arthroscopic repair of rotator cuff disorders is a technically demanding but successful procedure. Many anchor and suture alternatives are now available. The choice of the implant by the surgeon is less important than the configuration of the suture used to fix the tendon, however it is necessary to know if there are differences in the results, using each one of them. The aim of the study is to evaluate if there are differences between the knotted and non-knotted implant in terms of functional and satisfaction results. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A retrospective study was carried out on 83 patients operated between 2010 and 2014 in our center using 2anchoring systems with and without knotting (39 versus 44 patients respectively), with single row in complete rupture of the rotator cuff. RESULTS: At the end of the follow-up, an average score was obtained on the Constant scale of 74.6 points. 98% of the patients considered the result of the surgery satisfactory. Statistically, there were no significant differences between the 2groups in terms of functionality, satisfaction or reincorporation to activities. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: The functional results of the single-row cuff suture are satisfactory, although biomechanical studies show advantages in favor of sutures that reproduce a transoseo system. It our series of patients the presence of knotting does not show per se a significant functional difference being both superimposable techniques in absolute values of functionality and patient satisfaction.
Subject(s)
Arthroscopy/instrumentation , Rotator Cuff Injuries/surgery , Suture Anchors , Suture Techniques/instrumentation , Adult , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , Arthroscopy/methods , Female , Follow-Up Studies , Humans , Male , Middle Aged , Retrospective Studies , Treatment OutcomeABSTRACT
Resumen: Objetivo: Analizar si existen diferencias clínicas entre las técnicas "hilera simple" versus "suture bridge" en la reparación artroscópica de roturas de espesor completo del supraespinoso. Material y métodos: Estudio retrospectivo de 123 pacientes con rotura de espesor completo del supraespinoso, intervenidos entre Enero de 2009 y Enero de 2013 (60 hilera simple y 63 suture bridge). La edad media en el grupo suture bridge fue 63.3 años y en el grupo hilera simple, 62.9. Predominio de mujeres (67%) en ambos grupos. En todos los casos, se reparó la hilera medial con anclajes Bio-Corkscrew y la hilera lateral con implantes Bio-PushLock (Arthrex, Naples, FL). Resultados: El valor del test de Constant medio en individuos intervenidos mediante suture bridge fue 76.7 (ponderado 96.5). En hilera simple, fue 72.4 (ponderado 92.8). Se realizó también un análisis estadístico comparativo de cada ítem del test de Constant por separado. La fuerza es el único parámetro del test de Constant estadísticamente significativo y es mayor en el grupo suture bridge. Conclusiones: La reparación de las roturas de espesor completo del supraespinoso mediante suture bridge proporciona resultados clínicos superiores a la reparación en hilera simple, sin existir diferencias estadísticamente significativas (p = 0.298).
Abstract: Purpose: The purpose of this study is to analyze if there is any difference between the arthroscopic reparation of full-thickness supraspinatus tears with simple row technique versus suture bridge technique. Material and methods: We accomplished a retrospective study of 123 patients with full-thickness supraspinatus tears between January 2009 and January 2013 in our hospital. There were 60 simple row reparations, and 63 suture bridge ones. Results: The mean age in the simple row group was 62.9, and in the suture bridge group was 63.3 years old. There were more women than men in both groups (67%). All patients were studied using the Constant test. The mean Constant test in the suture bridge group was 76.7, and in the simple row group was 72.4. We have also accomplished a statistical analysis of each Constant item. Strength was higher in the suture bridge group, with a significant statistical difference (p < 0.04). The range of movement was also greater in the suture bridge group, but was not statistically significant. Conclusions: Suture bridge technique has better clinical results than single row reparations, but the difference is not statistically significant (p = 0.298).
